Top Contributors to Romney and Obama's campaigns; Banks ALL IN on Romney

Originally posted by The Old American


Goldman Sachs $535,680

Originally posted by The Old American
US Dept of State $106,040
US Government $86,589

I don't support Obama. Why is he using my money to campaign? I believe that's called "extortion" in the legal world.
/TOA

Hm...wouldn't it just be better if money for campaigns NEVER came from corporations?
It would certainly make corporations lose power over the governement and lower the chances of bribery and corruption.

Just sayin'

Look at all those useless banks, the useless middle men, that have lost faith in Obama!

Seriously, if I didn't know that he is all talk and I was looking at only the contributors, Obama would get my vote.

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

What I am most surprised with is campaign cash by the banks. Obama gained a ton of money from the banks as the financial crisis bloomed in 2008. Seems he may have pissed them off as their support seems to be gone....at least so far. Obviously still plenty of time to go till election day....but this makes me feel better about voting for him. This was one of the main reasons i had a problem with obama before was the bank bailouts and the money he received from them.

edit on 5-4-2012 by David9176 because: (no reason given)

That is a great point. I think trying to get a Consumer Protection Agency going
did Obama in on getting the money/support he got in 08 from the banks.

How ridiculous is it that we can't get a decent CPA to protect Americans
from obvious deceitful practices by corporations and banks!? They have
tricked swindled and sold out the American people for too long.
Hell yeah vote for Obama.

Oh and as you are well aware from all your posts and stars,
when you bring up how much more crooked the Right is in these dealings,
the first thing you'll hear from Rt wing voters is "well they are both bad".
Well guess what? One side is clearly much
much much worse.

reply to post by sealing

Well guess what? One side is clearly much much much worse.

I agree. The banks have turned on Obama with the CPA.....and he's also currently railing against wall street speculation of oil futures...which most of the big banks making billions doing it....increasing costs for the rest of us.

Obama has fallen out of favor with the banks...it's pretty apparent. yes, he's going to have some corporate donors...that's not a surprise....but he's also getting money from schools and lots of money from small contributors who most likely aren't swinging around millions or billions of dollars.

It's pretty clear who Romney is going to cater too if he were President. The Rich, Wall Street, and the Banks.

Romney doesn't really care about most of the BS that people who consider themselves "real" conservatives believe.

Romney is about money...BIG MONEY. He always has been.

The evangelicals and actual true small government types lost the nomination to Wall Street.

reply to post by braindeadconservatives


Before you pass judgment on a voucher program for seniors two facts you must realize. First if we dont do anything i gurantee within 10 years there wont be any money left for the seniors to use.Number 2 if you give people money and they decide how that want to use it isnt that what freedom is all about.Id much rather be abled to take the money i put in SOC SEC and put it in my 401 k ive had a 401 k now for four years and have been paying into soc sec for a little over 20. Guess what i have alot more money in my 401k If i had invested what i spent on soc sec id be doing great by the time a retire.

Now this plan isnt a new idea and in fact there are democrats that support it as well.You might want to read this from Huffington before you talk about something you know nothing about.

Ron Wyden

reply to post by David9176


They are similar enough that it doesn't matter which is picked the direction of the country does not change. They are backed by large corporations with a lot of the same interests so no matter what little things they change the direction of the country stays the same. No big changes or reforms will ever be made.

The most important thing is that if war is going to happen under one, it is going to happen under the other. If our rights are going to be stripped for our own protection under one, it will happen under the other.

Sure there are differences, but none that really matter in the long run.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow

The most important thing is that if war is going to happen under one, it is going to happen under the other. If our rights are going to be stripped for our own protection under one, it will happen under the other.

This is one point I really disagree with, War... Obama has had many chances to engage in a hot
conflict with Iran. The wingers in Jerusalem have been trying very hard to get the US fleet lined
up, but I think Obama's administration is not onboard with it. While I think Romney has his eye
on it based upon things he has said and his political affiliations.

Yes, and the banks were behind Obama in 2008. I have my money on Romney winning 2012, Obama doesn't have the support behind him like he did in '08, and I'm not even talking about the people's support. The problem is that having Romney in office will turn the executive branch into a puppet power, even more so than it already is.

We know what kind of man Romney is, he doesn't give a flying firetruck about the American people, yet anti-Obama sentiment is so strong that people are willing to trade a lesser evil for a preposterously potent one.

reply to post by braindeadconservatives



I agree, and this scares me. Romney, being a business man, should know that we can't afford another war, especially not now, and especially not against Iran.

Last thing we need is another war, we're already losing the war in Afghanistan and the war against tyranny at home; the middle east is the graveyard of empires, and lest we tread carefully, or rather not at all, we will be no exception. It is unconquerable.

reply to post by dragonridr

As Joe Biden said predicted Republican-affiliated super-PACs would raise between $400 million and $800 million and said that amount represented one of the greatest threats to the president's reelection effort. So far the only super pacs you have seen are are the candidates but theres lots of others and there going to carpet bomb Obama. And hes given them lots of ammo to use that when put in a neat commercial will have a major effect.

In the last CA gov election, Whitman demonstrated that you can spend too much money, and turn the voters off.

Romney is the heir to GW, and that is plain for anyone to see. Romney isn't going to get strong support from the republican base vote, which might keep his platform too far right to win a national election. Carpet bombing the media is likely to turn off more people than it will win over votes.

One big graphic is NOT worth a thousand words in a written conversation. Please be an example for our newer members and make every post matter.
ATS policy on comments that do not add to the discussion

David, no offense, but you're one naive man. If you think this a sign that only Romney is part of the elite and the only one serving the interest of big banks you must of been sleeping.

When the general election kicks in, Obama will have as many bankers backing him. The only reason Romney is running away with support from the banks at the moment is for the bankers to ensure they own both sides of the race. Obama's not in a race atm, his Goldman Sachs support will be there, 100%.

Anyone who still buys the 2 party system in an idiot and deserves what they get. These two are exactly the same.

GOOD LORD MAN......wtf?!
These 2 look more like Nascar drivers, than presidential candidates!!

~shivers/packs bags~